Abstract
Productivity of crops grown for human consumption is at risk due to the incidence of pests, especially weeds, pathogens and animal pests. Crop losses due to these harmful organisms can be substantial and may be prevented, or reduced, by crop protection measures. An overview is given on different types of crop losses as well as on various methods of pest control developed during the last century. Estimates on potential and actual losses despite the current crop protection practices are given for wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, soybeans, and cotton for the period 2001–03 on a regional basis (19 regions) as well as for the global total. Among crops, the total global potential loss due to pests varied from about 50% in wheat to more than 80% in cotton production. The responses are estimated as losses of 26–29% for soybean, wheat and cotton, and 31, 37 and 40% for maize, rice and potatoes, respectively. Overall, weeds produced the highest potential loss (34%), with animal pests and pathogens being less important (losses of 18 and 16%). The efficacy of crop protection was higher in cash crops than in food crops. Weed control can be managed mechanically or chemically, therefore worldwide efficacy was considerably higher than for the control of animal pests or diseases, which rely heavily on synthetic chemicals. Regional differences in efficacy are outlined. Despite a clear increase in pesticide use, crop losses have not significantly decreased during the last 40 years. However, pesticide use has enabled farmers to modify production systems and to increase crop productivity without sustaining the higher losses likely to occur from an increased susceptibility to the damaging effect of pests. The concept of integrated pest/crop management includes a threshold concept for the application of pest control measures and reduction in the amount/frequency of pesticides applied to an economically and ecologically acceptable level. Often minor crop losses are economically acceptable; however, an increase in crop productivity without adequate crop protection does not make sense, because an increase in attainable yields is often associated with an increased vulnerability to damage inflicted by pests.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
Potential global pest loss was about 50% in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Interactor
- pestse0pest
- Outcome
- total global potential loss due to pestse0
- Value
- about 50%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total global potential loss due to pests varied from about 50% in wheat to more than 80% in cotton production”
Claim · model-written summary
Potential global pest loss exceeded 80% in cotton.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Interactor
- pestse0pest
- Outcome
- total global potential loss due to pestse0
- Value
- more than 80%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total global potential loss due to pests varied from about 50% in wheat to more than 80% in cotton production”
Claim · model-written summary
Actual pest losses were estimated at 26–29% for soybean, wheat, and cotton.
- Taxon
- soybean, wheat and cottonGossypium hirsutum
Glycine maxTriticum aestivume0 - Interactor
- pestse1pest
- Outcome
- lossese0
- Value
- 26–29%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“losses of 26–29% for soybean, wheat and cotton”
e1“due to pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Actual pest loss was estimated at 31% for maize.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“31, 37 and 40% for maize, rice and potatoes, respectively”
e1“losses of 26–29%”
e2“31, 37 and 40%”
e3“due to pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Actual pest loss was estimated at 37% for rice.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Interactor
- pestse3pest
- Outcome
- lossese1
- Value
- 37e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“31, 37 and 40% for maize, rice and potatoes, respectively”
e1“losses of 26–29%”
e2“31, 37 and 40%”
e3“due to pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Actual pest loss was estimated at 40% for potatoes.
- Taxon
- potatoes
Solanum tuberosume0 - Interactor
- pestse3pest
- Outcome
- lossese1
- Value
- 40%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“31, 37 and 40% for maize, rice and potatoes, respectively”
e1“losses of 26–29%”
e2“31, 37 and 40%”
e3“due to pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Weeds caused the largest potential loss, 34%.
Verbatim
e0“weeds produced the highest potential loss (34%)”
e1“Productivity of crops grown for human consumption”
Claim · model-written summary
Animal pests caused 18% potential crop loss.
Verbatim
e0“animal pests and pathogens being less important (losses of 18 and 16%)”
e1“Productivity of crops grown for human consumption”
Claim · model-written summary
Pathogens caused 16% potential crop loss.
Verbatim
e0“animal pests and pathogens being less important (losses of 18 and 16%)”
e1“Productivity of crops grown for human consumption”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop protection efficacy was higher in cash crops than food crops.
Verbatim
e0“The efficacy of crop protection was higher in cash crops than in food crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Worldwide weed-control efficacy exceeded control of animal pests and diseases.
Verbatim
e0“worldwide efficacy was considerably higher than for the control of animal pests or diseases”
e1“Productivity of crops grown for human consumption”
e2“Weed control can be managed mechanically or chemically”
e7“weeds produced the highest potential loss (34%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop losses did not significantly decrease over 40 years despite increased pesticide use.
Verbatim
e0“Despite a clear increase in pesticide use, crop losses have not significantly decreased during the last 40 years”
e7“Productivity of crops grown for human consumption”
Claim · model-written summary
Pesticides enabled changes in production systems and higher crop productivity without higher pest losses.
Verbatim
e0“pesticide use has enabled farmers to modify production systems and to increase crop productivity without sustaining the higher losses likely to occur from an increased susceptibility to the damaging effect of pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend integrated pest and crop management with thresholds and reduced pesticide application.
Verbatim
e0“The concept of integrated pest/crop management includes a threshold concept for the application of pest control measures and reduction in the amount/frequency of pesticides applied to an economically and ecologically acceptable level”
Claim · model-written summary
Minor crop losses are often economically acceptable.
Verbatim
e0“Often minor crop losses are economically acceptable”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors advise that increasing attainable yield requires adequate crop protection against pests.
Verbatim
e0“an increase in attainable yields is often associated with an increased vulnerability to damage inflicted by pests”
e1“crop productivity without adequate crop protection”